emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 65349 

Available online at http://www.whitehouse. 

gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a119/a119.html. 

Last accessed December 2009. 10 NQF. NQF Consensus Development 

Process, v. 1.8. Available online at http:// 

www.qualityforum.org/Measuring_ 

Performance/Consensus_Development_ 

Process.aspx. Last accessed December 2009. 11 NQF. National Voluntary Consensus 

Standards for Hospital Care: An Initial 

Performance Measure Set. Washington, DC: 

NQF; 2003. 12 Hospital Quality Alliance: Improving 

Care Through Information. Available online 

at http://www.hospitalqualityalliance.org/. 

Last accessed December 2009. 13 Hospital Quality Compare—A quality 

tool provided by Medicare. Available online 

at www.HospitalCompare.hhs.gov. Last 

accessed December 2009. 14 NQF. Serious Reportable Events in 

Healthcare: A Consensus Report. 

Washington, DC: NQF; 2002. 15 NQF. Safe Practices for Better 

Healthcare: A Consensus Report. 

Washington, DC: NQF; 2003. 

IV. Secretarial Comments on the 

Annual Report to Congress 

The Secretary is pleased with the 

scope and vision of NQF’s March 2010 

annual report. An internal 

multidisciplinary cross-component HHS 

team is working collaboratively with 

NQF to ensure a clear multi-year vision 

to ensure the most efficient and effective 

utilization of the HHS contract. The 

contract with this consensus-based 

entity, NQF, provides a unique 

opportunity to further enhance HHS’ 

efforts to foster a collaborative, multistakeholder approach to increase the 

availability of national voluntary 

consensus standards for quality and 

efficiency measures to ensure broad 

transparency in achieving value in 

health care delivery. 

Over the past year NQF began work 

on several tasks outlined in the 

Statement of Work, including: 

Development of a national strategy for 

performance measurement and 

prioritization of measures for 

development and endorsement; an 

evaluation of NQF’s consensus 

development process; several measure 

endorsement projects focused on 

measure gap areas such as outcomes 

measures and patient safety measures; 

maintenance of currently NQF-endorsed 

measures; promotion of Electronic 

Health Records through such activities 

as the development of the ‘‘E-measure’’ 

and the retooling of a subset of existing 

NQF-endorsed measures into E-measure 

format; development of a public website 

to make available current NQF 

activities; endorsement of efficiency and 

resource use measures. The Secretary is 

pleased with the progress and 

timeliness of the work outlined in the 

Annual Report. 

V. Future Steps 

The consensus based contract with 

NQF is a four year contract. During the 

first full performance year of the 

contract, NQF completed deliverables 

for each task. HHS will continue to task 

NQF with single year and multi-year 

projects. 

Formulation of National Strategy and 

Priorities for Health Care Performance 

Measurement 

During March 2009 to February 2010, 

NQF created a framework for 

measurement prioritization by 

conducting an environmental scan of, at 

a minimum, the 20 patient conditions 

that account for over 95% of costs to the 

Medicare program. NQF established a 

steering committee to oversee the 

prioritization process and to consider 

additional measurement streams (e.g. 

population health, child health, Health 

IT) in its prioritization process. 

Consensus Development Process for 

Measure Endorsement 

During March 2009 to February 2010, 

NQF established steering committees to 

consider endorsement of outcomes 

measures in 3 phases. The first 2 phases 

will endorse outcomes measures for 

patients with Medicare high priority 

conditions. The third phase will 

endorse outcomes measures for mental 

health and for children. Future steps 

also include the endorsement of 

measures for patients in Nursing Homes 

as well as Patient Safety measures. 

Maintenance of Consensus Endorsed 

Measures 

During March 2009 to February 2010, 

NQF maintained endorsed measures 

relevant to HHS-wide programs and will 

be maintaining consensus-based 

endorsed measures as developed under 

the priority process. 

Promotion of Electronic Health Records 

During March 2009 to February 2010, 

NQF supported the promotion of 

electronic health records as part of HHSwide efforts. NQF developed the Health 

Quality Measure Format (HQMF, or ‘‘Emeasure’’), began the retooling process 

to convert a sub-set of currently 

endorsed measures into E–Measure 

format, and supported the HIT 

Standards Panel in developing code lists 

and vocabulary standards for the 

transition to performance measurement 

through Electronic Health Records. 

Future steps include the retooling of the 

remaining subset of currently endorsed 

measures, the development of a measure 

authoring tool for creating E-measures, 

and to support clinical decision support 

systems for measuring and reporting 

performance. NQF will also support the 

selection of performance measures for 

the Meaningful Use of electronic health 

records. 

Focused Measure Development, 

Harmonization, and Endorsement 

Efforts To Fill Critical Gaps in 

Performance Measurement 

During March 2009 to February 2010, 

NQF supported a variety of performance 

measurement efforts including, but not 

limited to, the areas of efficiency, 

harmonization, outcomes, patient safety, 

care coordination, ICD–10, palliative 

care, and nursing home quality metrics. 

The public is encouraged to give 

input through the NQF process and will 

be able to track the progress on work 

related to this contract on the NQF Web 

site located at: http:// 

www.qualityforum.org/projects/ 

ongoing/hhs/. 

VI. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This document does not impose 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Consequently, it need not be reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 35). 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26795 Filed 10–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Decision To Evaluate a Petition To 

Designate a Class of Employees From 

BWX Technologies Inc., Lynchburg, 

VA, To Be Included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort 

AGENCY: National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice as required 

by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to 

evaluate a petition to designate a class 

of employees from BWX Technologies, 

Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, to be included 

in the Special Exposure Cohort under 

the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000. The initial proposed definition for 

the class being evaluated, subject to 

revision as warranted by the evaluation, 

is as follows: 

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES

65350 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 

Facility: BWX Technologies, Inc. 

Location: Lynchburg, Virginia. 

Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All 

Atomic Weapons Employer employees. 

Period of Employment: January 1, 

1985 through November 30, 1994. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 

Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS 

C–46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 

877–222–7570. Information requests can 

also be submitted by e-mail to 

DCAS@CDC.GOV. 

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26558 Filed 10–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–19–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[Document Identifier: CMS–2088–92, CMS– 

10054, CMS–10102 and CMS–10358] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) is publishing the 

following summary of proposed 

collections for public comment. 

Interested persons are invited to send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

1. Type of Information Collection 

Request: Extension of a currently 

approved collection; Title of 

Information Collection: Outpatient 

Rehabilitation Provider Cost Report 

utilized by Community Mental Health 

Centers; Use: In accordance with 

sections 1815, 1833 and 1861 of the 

Social Security Act, providers of service 

in the Medicare program are required to 

submit annual information to achieve 

reimbursement for health care services 

rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In 

addition, 42 CFR 413.20(b) requires that 

cost reports will be required from 

providers on an annual basis. Such cost 

reports are required to be filed with the 

provider’s Fiscal Intermediary (FI)/ 

Medicare Administrative Contractor 

(MAC). 

The FI/MAC uses the cost report not 

only to make settlement with the 

provider for the fiscal period covered by 

the cost report, but also in deciding 

whether to audit the records of the 

provider. Form Number: CMS–2088–92 

(OMB#: 0938–0037); Frequency: Yearly; 

Affected Public: Private Sector: Business 

or other for-profits and not-for-profit 

institutions; Number of Respondents: 

596; Total Annual Responses: 596; Total 

Annual Hours: 59,600. (For policy 

questions regarding this collection 

contact Jill Keplinger at 410–786–4550. 

For all other issues call 410–786–1326.) 

2. Type of Information Collection 

Request: Extension without change of a 

currently approved collection; Title of 

Information Collection: Recognition of 

Payment for New Technology 

Ambulatory Payment Classification 

(APC) Groups under the Outpatient 

Prospective Payment System and 

Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR, Part 

419; Use: In the April 7, 2000 final rule 

first implementing the hospital 

outpatient prospective payment system 

(OPPS), we created a set of New 

Technology ambulatory payment 

classifications (APCs) to pay for certain 

new technology services under the 

OPPS. These APCs are intended to pay 

for new technology services that were 

not covered by the transitional passthrough payments provisions authorized 

by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act 

(BBRA) of 1999. Both the New 

Technology APC provision and the 

transitional pass-through provisions 

provide ways for ensuring appropriate 

payment for new technologies for which 

the use and costs are not adequately 

represented in the base year claims data 

on which the outpatient PPS is 

constructed. 

CMS needs to keep pace with 

emerging new technologies and make 

them accessible to Medicare 

beneficiaries in a timely manner. It is 

necessary that we continue to collect 

appropriate information from interested 

parties such as hospitals, medical 

device manufacturers, pharmaceutical 

companies and others that bring to our 

attention specific services that they 

wish us to evaluate for New Technology 

APC payment. We are making no 

changes to the information that we 

collect. The information that we seek to 

continue to collect is necessary to 

determine whether certain new services 

are eligible for payment in New 

Technology APCs, to determine 

appropriate coding and to set an 

appropriate payment rate for the new 

technology service. The intent of these 

provisions is to ensure timely 

beneficiary access to new and 

appropriate technologies. Form Number: 

CMS–10054 (OMB#: 0938–0860); 

Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: 

Private sector business or other forprofits; Number of Respondents: 15; 

Total Annual Responses: 15; Total 

Annual Hours: 180. (For policy 

questions regarding this collection 

contact Christina Smith Ritter at 410– 

786–4636. For all other issues call 410– 

786–1326.) 

3. Type of Information Collection 

Request: Extension of a currently 

approved collection; Title of 

Information Collection: National 

Implementation of Hospital Consumer 

Assessment of Healthcare Providers and 

Systems (HCAHPS); Use: The HCAHPS 

(Hospital Consumer Assessment of 

Healthcare Providers and Systems) 

survey is the first national, 

standardized, publicly reported survey 

of patients’ perspectives of hospital 

care, also known as the CAHPS® 

Hospital Survey. The HCAHPS is a 

survey instrument and data collection 

methodology for measuring patients’ 

perceptions of their hospital experience. 

While many hospitals have collected 

information on patient satisfaction for 

their own internal use, until HCAHPS 

there was no national standard for 

collecting and publicly reporting 

information about patient experience of 

care that allowed valid comparisons to 

be made across hospitals locally, 

regionally and nationally. 

Publicly reported HCAHPS results are 

based on four consecutive quarters of 

patient surveys. CMS publishes 

participating hospitals’ HCAHPS results 

on the Hospital Compare Web site four 

times a year, with the oldest quarter of 

patient surveys rolling off as the most 

recent quarter rolls on. Three broad 

goals have shaped HCAHPS. First, the 

survey is designed to produce 

comparable data on the patient’s 

perspective on care that allows objective 

and meaningful comparisons between 

hospitals on domains that are important 

to consumers. Second, public reporting 

of the survey results is designed to 

create incentives for hospitals to 

improve their quality of care. Third, 

public reporting serves to enhance 

public accountability in health care by 

increasing the transparency of the